Galaxy S5 sells 11 million units in the first month, 10% more than the S4

To keep up sales momentum, Samsung says it plans to release even more phones.

The Wall Street Journal has given us the first glimpse of the Galaxy S5's first-month sales data. Samsung's new smartphone sold 11 million units in its first month, which is a 10 percent increase over the Galaxy S4's first month.

Samsung Electronics recently recorded its second consecutive quarter of declining profits, so the higher sales of the S5 will no doubt be a welcome sight for the company. Still, Samsung has expressed disappointment in the performance of the Galaxy S4 in the past, saying that the design didn't resonate with consumers. It's not all Samsung's fault, though, as the high-end smartphone market is becoming saturated. Many companies, most notably Motorola, are now focusing more on lower end phones, where there is a high potential for growth and less competition.

The report states that Samsung hopes to keep up sales momentum by pushing its "flood the market" strategy and launching variations of the Galaxy S5. The rumor mill has continually been churning about a higher-end "Galaxy S5 Prime," possibly with a 2,560×1,440 and metal body. There is also supposedly work being done on a cheaper "Galaxy S5 Neo" and a smaller "Galaxy S5 Mini." The mention of Galaxy S5 variations would seem to confirm products like this, as Samsung charges forward with the mentality that "more product models equals more sales."

I can't believe just chucking out a bunch of not particularly great designs is a viable strategy.

Having ten billion variations of devices has worked well for Samsung up to this point. I don't see this announcement as a change of course, but simply a commitment to the same strategy they've used for the past few years.

I kind of view Samsung's R&D department as the theory of evolution in action. They rely on random mutation (releasing tons of different iterations), and then let natural selection in the market do its thing. Sure, most fail, just like most random mutations in nature do, but some succeed. And it's hard to know which will succeed until they're out there competing; many commentators said that the Galaxy Note was preposterous and doomed to failure, right up until it became a smash success.

I think only selling 10% more given the poor sales of the S4 is not particularly good news for Samsung.

Considering Verizon was advertising buy one get one free on them right after they came out, 10% might actually work out to worse sales than the S4. I wonder how or if they're calculating things like that in their sales numbers.

I can't believe just chucking out a bunch of not particularly great designs is a viable strategy.

Having ten billion variations of devices has worked well for Samsung up to this point. I don't see this announcement as a change of course, but simply a commitment to the same strategy they've used for the past few years.

I kind of view Samsung's R&D department as the theory of evolution in action. They rely on random mutation (releasing tons of different iterations), and then let natural selection in the market do its thing. Sure, most fail, just like most random mutations in nature do, but some succeed. And it's hard to know which will succeed until they're out there competing; many commentators said that the Galaxy Note was preposterous and doomed to failure, right up until it became a smash success.

I wish one of those random mutations included a hardware keyboard, it's been 2 years since we had a new flagship class phone with an actual keyboard.

I think only selling 10% more given the poor sales of the S4 is not particularly good news for Samsung.

Considering Verizon was advertising buy one get one free on them right after they came out, 10% might actually work out to worse sales than the S4. I wonder how or if they're calculating things like that in their sales numbers.

Verizon is still paying them for the phone so I assume they count it as a sale.

I think only selling 10% more given the poor sales of the S4 is not particularly good news for Samsung.

Considering Verizon was advertising buy one get one free on them right after they came out, 10% might actually work out to worse sales than the S4. I wonder how or if they're calculating things like that in their sales numbers.

I think only selling 10% more given the poor sales of the S4 is not particularly good news for Samsung.

Considering Verizon was advertising buy one get one free on them right after they came out, 10% might actually work out to worse sales than the S4. I wonder how or if they're calculating things like that in their sales numbers.

Exactly. In my area they were advertising the S5 as a "Buy one get one free" item starting a few days before it was formally released. Thus here it was a BOGO phone from day one.

If the calculations include all the free ones as "sold" then the actual number that truly sold for money could be barely more than half the reported number.

Think chucking out a bunch of not particularly great designs is a viable strategy? What would you call the following:* Windows Home Basic* Windows Home Premium* Windows Professional* Windows Enterprise* Windows Data Center Editionetc etc

I may not like Samsung doing this. But I can understand why they might be doing it.

There is also a remote possibility that silly, fickle consumers may take to one of those designs and you may have a short term big hit on your hands. It's like winning the lottery. Not likely. But it does happen.

I think only selling 10% more given the poor sales of the S4 is not particularly good news for Samsung.

Considering Verizon was advertising buy one get one free on them right after they came out, 10% might actually work out to worse sales than the S4. I wonder how or if they're calculating things like that in their sales numbers.

Exactly. In my area they were advertising the S5 as a "Buy one get one free" item starting a few days before it was formally released. Thus here it was a BOGO phone from day one.

If the calculations include all the free ones as "sold" then the actual number that truly sold for money could be barely more than half the reported number.

You're falling into the same trap that most US cellphone users fall into, those phones were still purchased, they're just being paid for over 2 years. Plus the US is just a small part of the world cellphone market and outside the US most phones are bought outright or purchased with the actual cost known upfront.

Samsung hasn't reported actual sales numbers of smartphones for years. They have only reported shipments. As we saw from documents from the recently concluded Apple/Samsung patent trial, the actual number of devices they sold to customers was significantly lower than the shipment figures. Why should this time be any different?

Samsung hasn't reported actual sales numbers of smartphones for years. They have only reported shipments. As we saw from documents from the recently concluded Apple/Samsung patent trial, the actual number of devices they sold to customers was significantly lower than the shipment figures. Why should this time be any different?

I suggest taking these numbers with a large quantity of salt.

According to another site this was sales and NOT shipments, since only Samsung and their various partners know the truth it could be a lie, but that would be risky as shareholder could see sales numbers as a material fact and sue if they are lying.

I can't believe just chucking out a bunch of not particularly great designs is a viable strategy.

Think chucking out a bunch of not particularly great designs is a viable strategy? What would you call the following:* Windows Home Basic* Windows Home Premium* Windows Professional* Windows Enterprise* Windows Data Center Editionetc etc

Mostly simultaneously released product family with varying features and pricing...

For all those complaining about the broad range of devices released by Samsung, let me just say this:I'm an Android user, and have never owned a Samsung device (and I HATE their UI...) However, I do notice how, on a regular basis, android-using friends and I disagree on what characteristics are key for our favorite or dream phone.

This includes anything from SD slot to better material to water resistance to longer battery life but slightly less powerful SoC, etc.

It goes to show, in the real world, users have a variety of demands, expectations, and preferences. Sure, Samsung could just let potential customers look at other brands' phones that are likely to be quite different... or they could make a wide range of models so that they can capture a wide swath of clients.

My iPhone friends on the other hand either are happy with their iPhone because it fits the profile they are looking for, never question the need or possibility for other sizes and feature-sets, or some are more and more envious of the diversity that exists in the Android ecosystem and are talking about making an Android move (so far only talk I must say, but time will tell).

Samsung is executing a market segmentation strategy, which, while potentially annoying for some, also has been shown to work in various industries. BMW did the same thing and it seems to be working OK for them.

In all seriousness, there are car analogies where this is a good strategy (BMW), and there are car analogies where this is a terrible strategy (pre-bankruptcy GM). But it doesn't matter, because this isn't a new strategy for Samsung selling electronics, and it's worked great for Samsung selling electronics. Samsung has been successful offering a multitude of hardware and software options to users, just like Apple has been successful focusing on the benefits of vertical integration. Since this strategy has been successful to Samsung selling smartphones up to this point, I see no reason to think it would be a bad move going forward.

I recall a distant past of maybe two or three years ago where it was HTC that churned out a range of phones for the world + dog. Everybody told them it was draining resources and caused consumer confusion.

I recall a distant past of maybe two or three years ago where it was HTC that churned out a range of phones for the world + dog. Everybody told them it was draining resources and caused consumer confusion.

I wonder why Samsung thinks this is a long-term viable strategy.

Maybe its because they have been doing it long term for their phones, and it has been not just viable but phenomenally successful. OR perhaps its because they have followed this strategy for their entire electronics division for over a decade and it has built them into the powerhouse of consumer electronics they are today.

I recall a distant past of maybe two or three years ago where it was HTC that churned out a range of phones for the world + dog. Everybody told them it was draining resources and caused consumer confusion.

I wonder why Samsung thinks this is a long-term viable strategy.

Because Samsung has identifiable, recognizable flagships, on all carriers, supported by massive advertising campaigns? And the other models are recognizable variants of those flagships that thus benefit from the halo effect of the marketing campaigns? Whereas HTC has historically played the carrier-exclusive game and hasn't supported its phones with even close to the advertising effort Samsung has?

They're both "the same strategy" in the sense that they both have a lot of models, but that doesn't mean they're identical. Samsung has done it in a way that's economically viable and HTC, to this point, hasn't.

Is that 11 million units in the US only, or worldwide?And how does that compare to the sales of the iPhone 5S over the same period?

Thanks

Here's a tip...try doing *your own* research instead of trying to get everyone else to do it for you.

Thanks.

My question was directed at the Ars journalists more than anyone else. Quoting a number is one thing, but putting that number into context is even better and that's why I was asking.

How many times have you seen things like "sales increased 50%" without disclosing the base figures?Is that an increase of 50% starting from a small number or a large number?Context is key, and it's not unreasonable for us to expect that to be provided in the article.

Yes I could research numbers myself, but I could research EVERYTHING I read on Ars for myself and so could you...

Samsung hasn't reported actual sales numbers of smartphones for years.

Neither has apple as I recall. They say a 'sale' whenever its handed off to a store, or other entity that themselves sell the devices. That is to say, where most other entities report 'shipment'.

Trying to find the document with the print, but it was quite a while since I went through it.

I don't know if Apple reports sales or shipments, but they do split up their sales or shipments for phones and tablets in a manner that is a wonder of transparency compared to the competition. Amazon still hasn't reported sales of their tablets in absolute numbers even once. They keep saying that they've doubled against the previous year or whatever, but never an actual number. Sammy is not quite so bad, as they do report sales of phones as a category, even if their definition of a "smartphone" is somewhat shady. I don't think I've seen them report tablet sales, though I may have missed it.

I recall a distant past of maybe two or three years ago where it was HTC that churned out a range of phones for the world + dog. Everybody told them it was draining resources and caused consumer confusion.

I wonder why Samsung thinks this is a long-term viable strategy.

Because it has worked so well in every other category they've tried it in? Not being snarky here, they really do sell well because they make so many.

No, if Samsung's mobile sales collapse, it would be because their relationships with carriers and/or Google go sour. Samsung is replaceable in the sense that an HTC or Lenovorola could fill the same spot in the market, but right now Samsung has the advantage of economy of scale and ongoing relationships. All they need to do is not fail, which they do by releasing enough models that one of them is sure to work in every market.

I think only selling 10% more given the poor sales of the S4 is not particularly good news for Samsung.

Considering Verizon was advertising buy one get one free on them right after they came out, 10% might actually work out to worse sales than the S4. I wonder how or if they're calculating things like that in their sales numbers.

Exactly. In my area they were advertising the S5 as a "Buy one get one free" item starting a few days before it was formally released. Thus here it was a BOGO phone from day one.

If the calculations include all the free ones as "sold" then the actual number that truly sold for money could be barely more than half the reported number.

Because Verizon is clearly the only one selling the S5 in the whole world.

Because Samsung can. Samsung has vast product portfolio other than smartphone. Samsung makes everything electronic. From lowly electronic part or chemical raw materials to pinnacles of finished goods, except software. So it is absurd for them to make a smartphone a year like Apple. It is ultimate vertical integration. Is it good strategy for smartphone? It depends. But it is surely the way Samsung does.

I recall a distant past of maybe two or three years ago where it was HTC that churned out a range of phones for the world + dog. Everybody told them it was draining resources and caused consumer confusion.

I wonder why Samsung thinks this is a long-term viable strategy.

Because it is a viable long-term strategy.

People want more than one type of phone.

Some people don't want >5" phones, so Samsung has to make a mini version. Some people want cheaper phones, so Samsung creates the Galaxy Ace line and Neo version of their flagship. People want even bigger screens, so the create the Note line. People want even higher dpi and metal on their phones, so Samsung creates a version for them.

The mini, and Note phones sell a lot, so that 2 type of phones are going to stay.

The Ace and Neo phones sell really well in emerging markets, so that type of phones are going to stay if they make Samsung money.

The Prime brand is a new line for Samsung, only time could tell if it going to sell well or not. If they release a Prime this year, then they better release the S6 Prime at the same time than the S6 next time, because I see this as hurting their sales next year if they release them 6 months apart.

I can't believe just chucking out a bunch of not particularly great designs is a viable strategy.

Having ten billion variations of devices has worked well for Samsung up to this point. I don't see this announcement as a change of course, but simply a commitment to the same strategy they've used for the past few years.

I kind of view Samsung's R&D department as the theory of evolution in action. They rely on random mutation (releasing tons of different iterations), and then let natural selection in the market do its thing. Sure, most fail, just like most random mutations in nature do, but some succeed. And it's hard to know which will succeed until they're out there competing; many commentators said that the Galaxy Note was preposterous and doomed to failure, right up until it became a smash success.

I can't believe just chucking out a bunch of not particularly great designs is a viable strategy.

Think chucking out a bunch of not particularly great designs is a viable strategy? What would you call the following:* Windows Home Basic* Windows Home Premium* Windows Professional* Windows Enterprise* Windows Data Center Editionetc etc

Mostly simultaneously released product family with varying features and pricing...

I can't believe just chucking out a bunch of not particularly great designs is a viable strategy.

Having ten billion variations of devices has worked well for Samsung up to this point. I don't see this announcement as a change of course, but simply a commitment to the same strategy they've used for the past few years.

I kind of view Samsung's R&D department as the theory of evolution in action. They rely on random mutation (releasing tons of different iterations), and then let natural selection in the market do its thing. Sure, most fail, just like most random mutations in nature do, but some succeed. And it's hard to know which will succeed until they're out there competing; many commentators said that the Galaxy Note was preposterous and doomed to failure, right up until it became a smash success.

Guessing is how Samsung designs products. Oh wait, they barrow too!

Barrow? You mean they deliver product in wheelbarrows? Or they bury their dead in huge artificial mounds? Or they sell them from small wheeled stalls in city centers?

Of course, if you meant "borrow", the obvious comment is that given the available technologies (lithium batteries, LCD screens, capacitative buttons, and the ancient WIMP software model), everybody borrows from everybody. A box of roughly rectangular shape with a screen on one side showing a grid of icons is a given; everything else is just more or less trivial variations.

Ron Amadeo / Ron is the Reviews Editor at Ars Technica, where he specializes in Android OS and Google products. He is always on the hunt for a new gadget and loves to rip things apart to see how they work.